Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references to Nephilim

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Significant entries with their own articles have already been added to Nephilim (disambiguation), satisfying the merge arguments; the merge and delete arguments together outnumber the keep arguments. Per those concerned about the utility of this article as a "dumping ground," I suggest reading the essay at WP:BHTT. Krimpet (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural references to Nephilim

Cultural references to Nephilim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Another article in the "X in popular culture" series. I imagine it was spun off the main Nephilim article to avoid dealing with a bloating non-encyclopedic section but as has been argued many times before, the correct move is to simply delete it. There is no interest in such haphazard collections of trivia. Pascal.Tesson 04:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - if this were called "List of trivia related to the word Nephilim" there would be no question about deleting it. However, because these articles hide behind the vague pretension to being an article about cultural references to X - despite simply being lists - we are forced to undertake these arguments, over and over again. Look at it - a list by any other name would smell as sweet. An unsourced list of trivia by any other name would be deleted in the same fashion. When I encounter trivia like this in another article, I typically request sources, add it to my watchlist, then delete it after a suitable length of time has passed. This entire article is nothing but an unsourced list of trivia. --Haemo 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with the caveat that somebody check this list for entries that belong on Nephilim (disambiguation). There's at least some that I would say do merit an entry on that page, since they have articles of their own. FrozenPurpleCube 05:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge with Nephilim (disambiguation). It is not "unsourced": e.g. to track source for the Xenosaga paragraph, click on the word "Xenosaga" in that paragraph, then scroll to the bottom of page Xenosaga, and there are the external source links. Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This argument doesn't even apply for most of these - it barely even applies for that one. If we replied on this method of sourcing, this article would be a stub. --Haemo 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- The people deleting these "in fiction" and "in popular culture" articles are doing far more harm to the project than keeping the pages. Certainly a lot of the cruft there could be removed, but that's not to say it doesn't have enough to be an article on its own, and that stuff sure as heck doesn't belong on the main article. These articles are spun off for a reason, deleting them just starts the whole process up again and wastes everyone's time. DreamGuy 06:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO, Haemo, and perhaps WP:OR. A problem with almost all these "...in popular culture" articles is that they're always unsourced dumping ground for any use of the topic's name in popular culture. Nephilim is a uncommon enough word where almost every use of it is most certainly a reference to the ancient christian/jewish texts. However, with out citing extraneous sources, labeling it a reference certainly borders on WP:OR. Why? Say I write a story with a character named David. This could be a reference to one of many known Davids, or it could just be a name that I used for some arbitrary reason. Without any sort of analysis (of the story or the writer), its not certain whether its a reference or not. Saying it is a reference, without secondary sources to back it up, is essentially saying "my interpretation of the David in this story is that it is a reference to this David" and that is original research. —Mitaphane _?|! 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Are "in popular dumping culture" articles dumping grounds for trivia and and unsourced nonsense? Sure, but without those pages the main articles become that as well. In fact all of Wikipedia could be said to be a dumping ground. Just like you can clean up any other article you can clean up in popular culture articles. Claiming it should be deleted because it attracts cruft not only would be an argument to delete all of Wikipedia but it presumes that making the main article the dumping ground is better than making a quarantine article. No matter which way you slice it, removing these articles is a truly bad idea. DreamGuy 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, possibly merge the salvageable parts back to Nephilim, which already has an "in fiction" section. Some of this definitely needs to go, but in general I don't find the "unsourced" argument convincing, since a great deal of this seems rather trivially easy to verify. Nor do the references seem uniformly trivial. -- Visviva 07:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I have reversed an undiscussed merger into Nephilim (disambiguation), per WP:GAFD. -- Visviva 07:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep don't see the problem here, but in sore need of context. --Infrangible 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- I don't see how this article is a problem, as practically everything in it can be verified at the linked articles and sites. It just needs some general cleanup and it will be fine. --Zenoseiya 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.